This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

re: Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal[W:286]

Originally Posted by ludin

there are still good judges out there just few and far between. the law is suppose to be neutral and independant of ideology but you constantly have judges making crap up that doesn't even exist as long as it justifies them politically.

Yep, I have seen so much of that I have given up completely on our judicial system. Heck, on our whole political system.

This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

re: Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal[W:286]

Originally Posted by sangha

No, it's not

No, it's not

No, it's not

From the law:

26 U.S. Code § 36B, 2, a - the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 [1] of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or

Black and white. It is the literal meaning of the words. The Federal Exchange does not receive the subsidies the way the law is written. It was written for State Exchanges.

Probably should have read before we passed it.

We went from sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me to safe spaces.

re: Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal[W:286]

Originally Posted by sangha

Yes, the one paragraph out of thousands and thousands of pages of text seems straightforward when you ignore those other million words.

However, if you were to look at those other words, you'd find some that clearly suggest that the tax credits would also apply to people who bought through an exchange run by the feds. This creates "ambiguity" and the court has a process, established long before AVA was even proposed, to resolve such ambiguities. This process requires the court to defer to the agency's interpretation of the text unless one can provide a compelling case for why they should not be deferred to (such as the interpretation is clearly in conflict with any reasonable interpretation of the text, unconstitutionality, etc)

In the decision that allows the subsidies, the court cites several examples of text that make no sense unless the authors intended the subsidies to apply to all of the exchanges, and not just those "established by the States". Ergo, "ambiguity"...Ergo "deference" to the IRS's interpretation

The government added to the ambiguity by exempting US Territories from the law by stating that they aren't "States". That's sure to come up in the appeal.

Almost exactly a year later, HHS has changed its mind. After a “careful review” of the statute — which presumably didn’t happen when this letter went out last year — HHS has discovered that “State” really does just mean states after all, and not any other level of government

that right there is the nail in the coffin.

State really means state and not any form of government. they can't constantly change the definitions willy nilly they have to be consistant.

Almost exactly a year later, HHS has changed its mind. After a “careful review” of the statute — which presumably didn’t happen when this letter went out last year — HHS has discovered that “State” really does just mean states after all, and not any other level of government

that right there is the nail in the coffin.

State really means state and not any form of government. they can't constantly change the definitions willy nilly they have to be consistant.

They can, and they have. The political left is heavily invested in the effort. The courts and government institutions have been very accommodating with that effort lately. Anyone bucking the effort is summarily smeared. It happens right here on DP all the time, too.

Almost exactly a year later, HHS has changed its mind. After a “careful review” of the statute — which presumably didn’t happen when this letter went out last year — HHS has discovered that “State” really does just mean states after all, and not any other level of government

that right there is the nail in the coffin.

State really means state and not any form of government. they can't constantly change the definitions willy nilly they have to be consistant.

Not like tax and penalty.

We went from sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me to safe spaces.

re: Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal[W:286]

Funny how, despite all your whining about the literal meaning of the words, you don't complain about how 36 states did not establish an exchange even though the law says they had to.

I didn't know we were talking about states setting up exchanges or not. I was pretty sure we were talking about the wording in the document that allows for use of Federal subsidies. I thought we were talking about the court ruling. Funny how you are whining about something we aren't even talking about.

We went from sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me to safe spaces.